Former featured articleSei whale is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleSei whale has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 14, 2009.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 24, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
November 24, 2006Good article nomineeListed
December 17, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
May 14, 2022Featured article reviewDemoted
January 3, 2024Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

Dive sequence

What does "The whale's dive sequence is more regular than its close relative." in the ==Behaviour== section mean? What close relative? Gene Thomas 11:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Physical Description

The beginning of the Physical Description section contained duplicated and slightly contradictory weights for adults. Also, the weights were given variously in tons and tonnes; I've settled on tonnes, which is quite possibly wrong. I'll try to find a source for correct weights. I always thought a ton was 2000lb, and a tonne 1000kg, shows what I know. Kfor 11:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA passed

This is definitely a Good Article. The prose is well-written and easily understandable by a non-specialist reader, well-referenced with many peer-reviewed journals as sources, broad enough and nicely illustrated with diagrams (I especially like the physical characteristic figure). It is really like reading an encyclopaedic book. Great job and well done for the hard works of the editors. This article has a very good prospect for featured article, but there are still many things needed to improve this article for the FA-level. I have put some comments below for further improvements:

Good luck for further improvements. — Indon (reply) — 14:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

I have looked reponses of my comments in the above thread at the PR page. Since this article has been submitted to FAC, I'd rather to make other comments here in the talk page. Below are just small writing comments for a better encyclopaedic article:

— Indon (reply) — 08:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidate

The Sei Whale (pronounced: [seɪ] or [saɪ]), Balaenoptera borealis, is a baleen whale, the third largest member of the Balaenopteridae family after the Blue Whale and the Fin Whale.[2]

Why not use Rorqual since you used the vernacular for 'ballen whale?' While many will have not heard of either, 'rorqual' is a word used in whaling communities.

The Sei Whale can be found worldwide in a band stretching from about 60 degrees south latitude to 60 degrees north latitude, preferring deep off-shore waters[6] and tending to avoid tropical waters and semi-enclosed bodies of water such as the Gulf of Mexico, the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Hudson Bay, the North Sea, and the Mediterranean Sea. In general, the Sei Whale migrates annually from cool and subpolar waters in summer to temperate and tropical waters for winter, although in some areas the exact migration routes are not known.[4]

This doesn't make sense to me. Your latitudes have almost excluded it from subpolar waters, and you say it avoids tropical waters, then it winters in tropical waters. Huh?

Following large-scale commercial hunting of the species between the late-nineteenth and late-twentieth centuries when over 238,000 individuals were caught,[7] the Sei Whale is now an internationally protected species,[1]

"Over 238,000" were caught total? Caught or killed? Taken is sometimes used, but whales aren't generally catch-and-release. "During large-scale commercial hunting of the species from the late-nineteenth to the late-twentieth centuries over 238,000 individuals were killed. The Sei Whale is now an internationally...."
All in all the choice of content of the lead section is superb, can whoever did this write an example for one of the botany plant family articles? (I'm not kidding.) (OFF Topic)

The species was first described by René-Primevère Lesson in 1828, but a further description was given by Karl Asmund Rudolphi and the species is often referred to as Rudolphi's Rorqual in older texts.[9]

I'm a little unclear about "but a further description." What did that lead to? Is that why it's called Rudolphi's Rorqual, also because you didn't use this word, 'rorqual' in the lead paragraph, and you didn't link to it, it needs defined. Oh, I see, you do define it in the next sentence. I think the word needs introduced earlier.Other common names for the species include the Pollack Whale and Coalfish Whale.

:"Pollack Whale" already defined in lead, but why "Coalfish Whale?" Etymology needed. latin needs capitalized "Latin." Other comments: :Mention general trend in size dimorphism northern and southern species of marine mammals, the pectoral fins in the picture look long like a humpback's but are described as "short," short compared to what, for its family?, mention that paired blowholes are characteristic of Mysticeti, 'deep' used excessively in habitat section. Still more things, will look more. Overall, the content choice is superb, the article's pretty good and, imo, will be successfully tweaked into a FA without much serious work, but quite a bit of piddling. KP Botany 23:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Addressing your comments in order:

:*Done. :*I removed the latitudes and used geographic references instead, and the wintering in tropical waters should have been subtropical waters. I have made that correction. :*That is an example of my trying to avoid overuse of the words "hunted" and "killed". I thought that catching a whale was fairly equivalent, because as you say, whales aren't generally catch-and-release, especially in the context of commercial hunting. I've scanned the article for "caught" and "catch" and replaced all instances with "taken", except for reference names and direct quotes. And as far as botany articles, I admit that botany wasn't my strongest (or favorite) subject in school due to botanists' love of coming up with new and unique words for virtually everything they possibly can put a label on, and thus far have steered well clear of botany articles. But simple copyediting is a different story. :*Capitalized Latin.

I'm out of time for now, will address the last section and the other issue with repetitiveness you raised on the FAC page when I get a chance later. Neil916 (Talk) 17:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:*I don't understand your comment, "Mention general trend in size dimorphism northern and southern species of marine mammals". The first paragraph of the "Physical description and behaviour" section does mention that the Southern Sei Whales are larger than the Northern Sei Whales. Or are you referring to a comment like, "similar to other species of marine mammals, the populations in the southern hemisphere are larger than their northern hemisphere counterparts[citation]" ? :*The anatomy diagram is a generalized picture of a baleen whale, not specifically of a Sei Whale. I didn't produce it, it may have been based upon a humpback whale, hence the very long pectoral fins.

  • I don't think they're quite long enough to be a humpback's, but it may be, they do look long in the picture, to me. However, the sentence says, "The snout is pointed and the pectoral fins are short." This should include something about how they're short, are they short like most Baleen whales, short for the size of the animal, what. Also, clicking on the link, this is an exact quote from the website and must be in quotation marks--as all exact quotes should be. I think this sentence needs an additional source, or specific research.

:::*I have clarified this section. :*Mentioned paired blowholes being distinctive of baleen whales. :*I think I must have removed the redundant references to "deep" in one of my earlier edits, because the word is only used once now.

  • Let me know if you find more.
-- Neil916 (Talk) 16:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the comment about the sexual dimorphism, Sei Whales are given as an example of some specific exception to sexual dimorphism in relation to their social structure in biology texts. I'll have to research it, as I was hoping the comment would jar your memory from your readings, rather than require research. Oh, I see, since I lumped that in with a question about whether or not there was north/south difference, then deleted that due to something in the article, but deleted the wrong part--so, apologies, the question as written is incomprehensible. It's just about sexual dimorphism of Sei Whales, not about north/south trends.
I'll print it out, go through it entirely, and get back to you asap, as I really like the article and would love to see it get featured. KP Botany 17:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lead paragraph comments

Any chance of getting a photograph of a Sei Whale's skull? I don't think there are any in the West Coast whaling museums, but there might be on the East Coast, and I don't know about European. This lack doesn't impact its FA strength, though. I just like the skulls and think it would enhance the article.

* "a fish that appears off the coast of Norway at the same time as the Sei Whale" * -->at the same time of the year as the Sei

* "primarily marine copepods and krill." * okay, but maybe ---> "primarily copepods, krill and other zooplankton." marine is redundant, imo

* "although it continues to be hunted to a limited extent under controversial scientific research programmes conducted by Iceland and Japan" * --->"under controversial research programmes" scientific is unnecessary, makes it too wordy

Overall, and again, very strong and appropriate lead section, imo that should not be changed substantively. KP Botany 15:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC) :GOod suggestions, I have made those changes. Neil916 (Talk) 16:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAC Taxonomy and naming

KP Botany 15:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAC Physical description and behaviour


















KP Botany 16:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC) And various comments added KP Botany 03:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC) And a couple of comments added KP Botany 20:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAC Feeding








KP Botany 17:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, I was able to locate species information on the squid being consumed and added that information. The date for the reference about the anchovies was from 1977, and I haven't seen anything about El Niño specifically affecting the whale's diet. I don't know anything about the anchovies being overfished. Depending on your viewpoint, there is conflict with fisheries over the competition with the whales over the prey species. Japan has justified its scientific whaling program due to the need to study the level of competition between whales and the commercial fishing industry, whereas conservation organizations such as WWF scoff at that assertion and claim that Japan is trying to blame its poor fisheries management practices on overconsumption of valueable food species by whales when "it is known" that only 3% (or something like that) of the food consumed by the Sei Whale in particular is fish of commerical importance and the whaling program is just an excuse to keep the Japanese whaling fleets in operation. I basically need to mull over how to phrase what I've just said in a NPOV manner without getting too much into the conflict over whaling which I have addressed further down in the article. I'll see what I can come up with.
P.S., I'm going to start replying in blocks at the bottom of the lists now, instead of after each and every bullet point, except where it would be appropriate. It should make this discussion easier to read for everybody else down the road. Neil916 (Talk) 05:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should have used numbers instead of bullet points, and will in the future. KP Botany 20:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added the information about fecal matter collection. Neil916 (Talk) 06:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAC Life History

</BR>


KP Botany 17:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vocalizations



KP Botany 17:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Range map

The range map doesn't really match the text: "rarely found in tropical waters" and avoiding semi-enclosed areas. By the way, great work has been done on this article. Kla'quot 18:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this sentiment entirely, excellent article. KP Botany 18:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The range map that was on the article was inaccurate. I've replaced it with one from a NOAA publication. Ideally, the instructions for taxobox range maps specify that the range map should be based upon Image:BlankMap-World-noborders.png, but I'm no artist, so if anybody wants to step up and convert the range map, be my guest. Neil916 (Talk) 06:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a map based on the one you put up there and replaced the old Image:Cetacea range map Sei Whale.PNG with it. Chris_huhtalk 13:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Chris, really clear and straight-forward. KP Botany 20:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAC Habitat and migration












KP Botany 18:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAC Whaling



KP Botany 18:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAC (Whaling) North Atlantic






KP Botany 18:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neil916 (Talk) 18:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAC (Whaling) North Pacific

* "At shore stations in Japan and Korea, 300–600 Sei Whales were taken each year by whalers between 1911 and 1955."

* ---> I think that "shore stations" refers to the processing centers set up in the late 19th century starting in Norway, then elsewhere. So technically, it seesm, in the first instance, you're saying the whales were "taken at shore stations," when, in fact they were only processed there? In second instance, it should say, if this is the case, as these are pelagic animals, not coastal, "California shore whalers processed 386 whales."
* "by Canadians in British Columbia" * ---> "by Canadians in waters off British Columbia" Or are they all harvested in the ocean off Vancouver Island?
* ---> In the first sentence of the first paragraph your time frames overlap, this, to me, makes it hard to see the big picture.
* ---> Can you put the last sentence of each paragraph together and make it the single last sentence of the first paragraph? "In 1971, after a decade of high Sei Whale catch numbers, the species became scarce in Japanese waters." * "Commercial whaling for Sei Whales ended in the western North Pacific in 1975, and in the eastern North Pacific in 1971."


KP Botany 19:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC) :You are correct about the shore stations and British Columbia waters, and I have clarified the text. As far as the overlapping time frames, I decided that less information would be easier to comprehend, and summarized the second source as simply "the majority were taken after 1947". I've partially implemented your suggestion about the dates of the end of whaling; the first paragraph deals with the eastern pacific and the second with the western pacific, so I just split the end dates into the appropriate paragraphs. Neil916 (Talk) 06:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAC (Whaling) Southern Hemisphere

* ---> Should "hemisphere" be capitalized, I think not, but others may know better. * ---> Who was whaling, what countries, in the southern hemisphere? None are mentioned.
KP Botany 19:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC) :No, southern hemisphere should not be capitalized. I don't have a list of the nations that hunted in the southern hemisphere, but a few minutes on Google suggests to me that it's not a short one. Neil916 (Talk) 06:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAC International Protection

* "the kill was limited only by whalers' abilities to find the whales" * ---> "Prior to catch quotas, whalers were limited only by their ability to locate the whales."


* ---> Are their studies that show what kind of pressure the species was under at the time the moratorium was declared, or when the catch quotas were first set in 1970? And what kind of trends led to the moratorium?



KP Botany 19:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made the copyedit to the ability to locate the whales sentence. All legal whaling stopped in 1986 because the IWC voted in 1982 to halt all global commercial whaling. I tried to clarify this, but I'm not sure where your confusion about Japan and Norway came in. I've discussed population statistics more in the "population estimates" section, although not specifically limited to the period of time when the moratorium took effect. I left it with a general statement that the moratorium was a result of increasing evidence that several whale species were being threatened with extinction. As far as the Soviet Union, it was just the Soviets, not modern russia. I don't think that past tense is appropriate, since the data still exists, and is still unreliable. (ARE still unreliable-- I never get used to recognizing that the word "data" is plural). The documents detailing misreported Soviet hunting detailed illegal hunting in the waters of New Zealand and the Antarctic, but also in the northwestern part of the Indian Ocean, and in the Southwest Atlantic. Sei Whales were not explicitly named. I have also seen reports of illegal Korean whaling, but nothing relating to Sei Whales. I haven't seen anything about illegal whaling in the southern hemisphere. The only thing I could find was a very vague reference to Japan blocking the attempted import of Sei Whale meat from Russia in 1992, I believe, but the reference is a bit iffy for inclusion here. Reversed the sentences in the last paragraph. Neil916 (Talk) 07:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAC Post-protection whaling

Who funds the Japanese research, the government or the whaling industry? Where do they publich, in any international journals, or in exclusively Japanese journals? Greenpeace may have this information. Name specific envirornmental campaigns that dispute the need for research and the value of the Japanese and Norweigan research or the caliber.
KP Botany 20:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese research is conducted by a private, non-profit entity, the ICR, although I have seen references (perhaps incorrect) to the ICR as the Government of Japan. The ICR's website (www.icrwhale.org) spells it out as "The Institute of Cetacean Research (I.C.R.), a unique organization in Japan specializing in the biological and social sciences related to whales, came into being in October 1987. It is a nonprofit research organization whose legal status is authorized by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Government of Japan, as a foundational judicial person." As I understand it, results of the research are presented to the scientific committee of the IWC. I have information about WWF opposing the research based upon a paper presented to the IWC but don't have any other names. Neil916 (Talk) 08:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually more relevant to an article on whaling in general than a specific article on the Sei Whale. KP Botany 17:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Population estimates










KP Botany 20:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made changes, although I didn't rewrite the entire section. See what you think of it now. Neil916 (Talk) 17:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it's rather hard to follow, for example, the first paragraph does not tie the following information together at the end or into the opening sentence (or just part of the opening sentence, maybe adding how that population estimate is divided among oceans might help).
  1. "The current global population of the Sei Whale is estimated at only 54,000, about one fifth of the population before the era of commercial whaling.[6]" Who made this population estimate, stated explicitly might relieve some of the confusion of the following unrelated statements.
  2. "A 1991 study in the North Atlantic produced a total population in that area of only 4,000.[59] This study used a common method of measurement called "catch per unit effort" (CPUE), which attempts to draw conclusions about abundance based upon the amount of time and effort that is required to locate the species in question." I think it is based upon the time and effort that is required to catch the species, not locate it, and the total catch.
  3. "This method is criticised in the scientific community and is not considered a true scientific index of abundance.[60]" Why is the method criticized in the scientific community? Because it's economically driven?
  4. This list of unrelated sentences about the North Atlantic stocks must somehow be tied into the initial sentence, or they should be deleted, or the initial sentence changed to introduce this list of various esitmates from different places.
  5. "A study in 1977 produced a population estimate for the Pacific Ocean of 9,110, based upon the catch and CPUE data.[49]" Whose study? Sounds like a fisheries study.
  6. "This figure is disputed as outdated by Japanese whaling interests, which in 2002 claimed that the population of Sei Whales in the western North Pacific was over 28,000 whales,[57] a figure not accepted by the scientific community.[8]" This sounds awkward to me. "Japanese whaling interests dispute this figure, claiming in 2002 that the population of Sei Whales in the western North Pacific was over 28,000 whales[57], a figure not accepted by the international scientific community."
  7. "Prior to commercial whaling activities, there were an estimated 42,000 Sei Whales in the North Pacific.[49] By the end of the period of exploitation (1974), the numbers of Sei Whales in the North Pacific had been reduced to between 7,260 and 12,620 whales.[49]" I'd like to see this paragraph follow the form of the first, or the first follow the form of this paragraph. I think the first of these two sentences could open this paragraph, and probably the first paragraph could conclude with a similar sentence of the best international scientific consensus on the total Sei Whale population of the Atlantic.
  8. If you do what is suggested just above, then this paragraph will have a similar structure, also. "In the Southern Hemisphere, Sei Whale abundance estimates range between 9,800 and 12,000 whales, based upon the history of catches and CPUE in the southern oceans." Add the source of the data.

KP Botany 19:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAC Wrap up


KP Botany 20:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Physical description vs Description

I believe the adjective, which relates to the noun, here adds nothing to the heading. The word relates to the description of the animal. At the moment across various pages we have Physical description, Description, Characteristics, Physical Characteristics, Appearance and Identification for a section, generally below the lead, where a description of the animal, plant or fungus is given. I settled on Description (though a few bird pages have Identification) as it was the most succinct and apt descriptor of what the section actually does. Needless to say conformity is a good thing (I do it alot and someone has take the time with the other whale articles to streamline them alot)

If you remove the adjective it makes no difference to the meaning of the section. Can you show me how you feel the lack of the adjective may be ambiguous? If you can make a case for it I'll happily embark on changing loads of others :) cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 20:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map

The range map doesn't accurately match the one in source number 2 (http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/full/2475/0 ), and it is unsourced - quite bad for a FA and article of the day. Could anyone fix the map? Rain74 (talk) 07:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Factual Issues

I don't understand why people are reverting the facts about Sei whale's sexual escapades. I suggest you do your research before making such callous reverts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.222.45 (talk) 08:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vocalizations

The statement at the end of the Vocalizations section "This is louder than a jet engine and a gun blast." is incorrect and I am surprised that an article with such a basic error is so highly ranked. It is not trivial to compare sound levels in water to those in the ocean and you cannot just compare the dB values (see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_acoustics#Comparison_with_airborne_sound_levels). Depending on how you make the comparison you have to subtract between 26 and 60 dB from the air sound levels to make them equivalent to those in water. The Sei whale vocalization is not as loud as a jet engine or gun blast. This sentence should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.236.95.164 (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. When this article was promoted to featured article, it had a more accurate comparison with a footnote leading to a detailed discussion of comparing sounds in air to sounds in water. I have reverted to that version. Neil916 (Talk) 16:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CETA capitalisation discussion

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bowhead Whale which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 02:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

15 METRE LONG SEI WHALE FOUND DEAD

There is a article in the whakatane beacon about a sei whale being washed up on whale island witch is very horrible to here a bout and the size was 15 metres long and has recorded to be one of whakatanes largest whales recorded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.102.35 (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation Status ; paragraph 3.

", although the acknowledged misreporting of whaling data by the Soviet Union[62] means that catch data are not entirely reliable."

Is this stating that catch data altogether is not reliable or is it supposed to be specifically for the Soviet's catch data? It seems off. Sorry in advance if my speculation was misused.

Sei whale third largest rorqual?

I know they are the third longest rorqual (albeit by only a few feet), but are they the third largest? Cetacean Societies (Mann et al. 2000) gives the median weight of an adult female sei as 41,000 lbs, whereas the humpback is stated as 77,000 lbs. The Marine Mammals of the Gulf of Mexico (Wursig et al. 2000) says seis range between c. 28,000-34,000 lbs (max. probably about 63,000 lbs) and humpbacks between c. 68,000-90,000 lbs. Only Guide to the Marine Mammals of the World (Reeves et al. 2002) specifically says seis grow larger (100,000 compared to 90,000 lbs) than humpbacks, but it doesn’t cite a source. Humpbacks tended to yield more oil, being higher up on the blue whale unit scale than seis (1:2.5 compared to 1:6, although a British chemist revealed it is closer to 1:2.5 to 1:3.8). But perhaps oil yield isn't the best way to approximate size? I guess you could also argue whether humpbacks are true rorquals or not, being outside the Balaenopterid genus. Skimming through a few Wikipedia articles, it appears they are included as rorquals though, so this appears worthy of debate.

Also, the source cited (Reeves et al. 1998, p. 11) states seis only reach a maximum of 28,000 kg (28 mt; c. 60,000 lbs). Where did the figure of 45 tonnes come from? That seems quite large for such a slender species. OldBabyBlue (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UK vs US English spelling

Since it seems to be popular nowadays to go through articles and change the spellings from UK to US English and vice versa, I'll save everybody the hassle. The very first revision of this article, [2] used UK English spelling. Per WP:ENGVAR, this article should remain with that variant of English, even though it means so many of the words are spelled wrong (*grin*). I hope that saves a whole bunch of people a whole bunch of time. Neil916 (Talk) 16:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sei whale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 5 June 2024).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sei whale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 5 June 2024).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sei whale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 5 June 2024).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:URFA/2020

There is considerable uncited text and clean-up needed on this article, along with Fin whale for the current FA criteria. 2001:4455:364:A800:545D:5A2E:3020:5FAC (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. grungaloo (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Sei whale/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grungaloo (talk · contribs) 19:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Hi 20 upper, I'm going to take this review on. It may take me a few days for a full review but I'll ping you when I'm done. Feel free to ping me in the meantime if you have any questions. grungaloo (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Grungaloo: I've applied almost all of your suggested changes. I'm taking a break, and when I come back, I'll try to find citations for "each description of the species (Rudolphi, Cuvier, Lesson)". 20 upper (talk) 10:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 20 upper, I've finished my review. My comments are almost entirely prose-related, so hopefully it should be easy enough to get this to GA. Feel free to respond to my comments inline, just indent/sign them so I know they're yours. Ping me when you're done and ready for me to check. grungaloo (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Grungaloo I'm  Done, please have a look. 20 upper (talk) 10:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the work, it looks great. There are only 2 outstanding items from what I can tell. I've marked both in the comments below with exclamation mark . Once those have been resolved I think this will be good to promote. I also made a few minor copyedits (grammar fixes, missing words) during this read-through. Let me know if you have any issues with the changes I made. grungaloo (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Grungaloo I'm done. I think I've specified the second issue; if not, please tell me what you don't understand. 20 upper (talk) 08:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies! When I re-read it I missed the change you had made. Thanks for all your work on this, I'm promoting this article. grungaloo (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    See comments Issues addressed, prose is good.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Ref spot checks all good. No sign of OR or copyvio.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Good coverage of topic, not overburdened with detail.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Meets NPOV
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No problematic reverts or obvious edit-warring.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Good images, appropriately captioned.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments

General comments

Lead

Etymology

Taxonomy

Size

Anatomy

Life history

Range and migration

Whaling

Conservation status

Population estimates

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Categories